WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS ANTI-DRUG, TV TIE

Media: Officials say they believe they can continue to use network
programming to get message out. Influence on creative content is denied.

In Hollywood and in Washington, White House officials Friday mounted an
aggressive defense of their efforts to get more anti-drug themes on
television, rejecting claims that surfaced earlier this week that their
program has amounted to censorship and payola.

Despite the flurry of criticism, officials said they are confident that
they can continue to use network programming to get their message out.

Alan Levitt, director of what is formally called the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, said "never once that I'm aware of" had a program
been submitted in advance and then altered in order to receive credit from
the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

"What we're doing is in accordance with the law," said retired Gen. Barry
R. McCaffrey, head of the drug control policy office, in an interview. "I
am hyper-sensitive to 1st Amendment rights issues, and I am not going to
get involved in influencing program content."

Meanwhile, anti-drug office Deputy Director Donald Vereen, speaking at a
news conference in Pasadena to unveil results of a survey that looked at
how the networks depict drug and alcohol use, said the program has been
entirely public and never sought to get story lines changed.

The networks all denied that the drug policy office had any influence on
creative content or that the process was secretive. As NBC's Rosalyn
Weinman, executive vice president of broadcast content policy and East
Coast entertainment, put it: "NBC never ceded content of any of our
programming to the [drug control policy office] or any other department of
the government. At no time did NBC turn over scripts for approval." The
other networks issued similar statements, and at this point none intend to
walk away from participation in the program, which continues for three more
years.

The five-year program was designed as a way to get anti-drug messages to
the forefront and not relegated to the wee hours of the morning when public
service announcements often air. Under the plan, the government buys prime
ad time on a network (or space in a newspaper or on a Web site) for
anti-drug messages. In exchange, however, that network, newspaper or Web
site must donate public service time equivalent to half of what the
government bought.

Because messages within a program are much more effective than 30-second
ads, the White House office decided to let media outlets earn credits for
incorporating anti-drug messages in their content.

The process of gaining credit works like this: A producer, whether working
for the network's in-house production company or for an outside supplier,
develops a story line. If the story is drug-related, the producer or writer
or even the network that is planning to air the show may or may not seek
technical advice from the ONDCP, just as they seek advice from other
organizations on how to portray a disability or safe sex. Once the episode
is finished, either in script form or in taped form, it is submitted to the
drug control policy office by the network sales department and apparently
without the knowledge of the producers, for credit.

Whether the network got credit depended on whether the plot fit into one of
the strategic messages in what the White House office calls its "burgundy
bible" (for the color of the cover) that lists such concepts as "peer
refusal skills" or "parent efficacy" deemed important by the office, Levitt
said. Perhaps "a couple dozen" completed shows that were submitted were
rejected for not fitting into the office's plan, he said. The networks
received credit for 109 episodes.

Top television producer Dick Wolf termed the controversy a "non-issue": "If
you look at my shows, going from 'Miami Vice' to 'Law & Order,' you see how
we handle [the drug issue]. I've never ever had a call from the network
asking us to put anything in."

But many writer-producers felt stung that they had not been told about the
program. "I think it's appalling," said Gail Berman, president of Regency
Television. "It's inappropriate for the government to participate in this
way in the production of television."

Ira Glasser, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said
it was laughable to suggest that the White House has been reviewing TV
scripts without wanting to influence their content. "They just like to
read? "Basically what this says if that if you want to sell your ad space
at full price, you've got to give the government the right to look at what
you're saying in your sitcoms and see if they meet the government's
requirements. It's unconstitutional. There are severe 1st Amendment problems."

Even more distressing, Glasser said, is the "complicity" shown by the
networks in agreeing to the practice. "They've betrayed their viewers'
trust and I think ought to be criticized at least as severely as the
government." But President Clinton voiced his support of the program's
intent: "It's my understanding that there is nothing mandatory about this,
that nobody--there was no attempt to regulate content or tell people what
they had to put into it. Of course, I wouldn't support that. But I think
[McCaffrey's] done a very good job at increasing the sort of public
interest component of what young people hear on the media."

On Capitol Hill, the program got mixed reviews, drawing both praise and
condemnation. "I strongly support anti-drug messages, but this is a very
troubling precedent," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). "It is
also not what Congress expected when it provided $1 billion in 1997 for
anti-drug TV ads." John Feehery, spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis
Hastert (R-Ill.), said it was "very upsetting that the White House has
control over the content of the nation's television programs."

But Feehery says he hasn't heard of any plans for lawmakers to hold
hearings on the issue, and Republicans say privately they aren't likely to
pick a fight with the administration over it.

As for other government oversight, Federal Communications Commission
spokesman Joy Howell said the agency isn't currently reviewing the White
House's conduct or its own FCC rules but said "if somebody filed a
complaint, we'd look at it."